Template talk:In the news

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Jump to: navigation, search

It has been proposed below that In the news be renamed and moved to Around the world.

The proposed move has been noted at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If a clear consensus for the page move has been reached, please move the article and remove this notice, or request further assistance (if necessary).
Maintenance Use Only: {{subst:WP:RM|In the news|Around the world|}} -- ~~~~ {{moveoptions}}

[edit]

Notes for users

[edit]

Guide to writing news stories

  • See these sources to look for breaking news in various parts of the world.
  • Please endeavour at all times to be NPOV in your reporting.
  • This means news stories should also originate from all over the world.
[edit]

How to suggest a story for the main page

This page (Template:In the news) is the "In the news" section on the Main Page. To protect against vandalism, the page is protected and can only be edited by administrators. After following the process below, please make suggestions for stories at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. The template will be updated periodically by administrators.

  1. Since Wikipedia is not a news report, please check that the news item is important enough to merit changing the related article. If it is, continue to step 2.
  2. Any bolded news-related article that appears on the Main Page must be listed on its corresponding subject area page before being listed on the Main Page. For example, a news item should first be listed on current events.
  3. Bolded items must be updated to reflect the current event.
  4. The item must then be suggested at the candidates page.

See also the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page.

In the news

French cities affected by rioting as of November 8, 2005.

Wikinews – Recent deaths – More current events...
[edit]

Notes for administrators

Please read before editing the section or making comments on this discussion page.

[edit]

Main Page: Updates and Caching

The main page does not necessarily update immediately with updates from the "In the news" section. The next update to the Main Page by an administrator will make the change appear properly. This link will purge the cache of the Main Page so that the present version appears: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=purge

[edit]

Image protection and notation

Before updating Template:In the news with a new image, protect that image and add {{ProtectedMainPageImage}} to the image's description page. Also, unprotect the old image that is being removed. When using images, parenthetically note in the text that the mentioned item is pictured. Example: "...leader José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (pictured right) is sworn in..."

[edit]

Corresponding "Current Events" item

Before adding an item to the "In the news" section, ensure that there is a corresponding item in page Current Events with a URL to an article about the news story.

[edit]

Copyrighted images

Before placing an image in the template, ensure that its copyright is well-documented and that it is legal for it to be displayed on the Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]

Disengagement blurb should be updated

The following section on the disengagement is no longer accurate:

Israel begins its unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip.

Israel began the disengagement on the 15th, this is already the beginning of Day 4 of the disengagement see the headline at [www.haaretz.com]

A better sentence might be "The Israeli military continues forcibly evacuating Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip as part of the disengagement plan.

GabrielF 00:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Gabriel, that would be an appropriate change for you to make. Pedant 02:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Japan election

Can we change "Japan general election: Junichiro Koizumi's Liberal Democratic Party wins 296 of 480 seats in the House of Representatives." to "Japan general election: Junichiro Koizumi's ruling bloc wins a landslide victory in the lower house of the Diet of Japan"? A word landslide is, I think, gives a more accurate clear picture. -- Taku 00:23, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't think so. Saying "296 of 480 seats" is much more precise and informative than the rather vague "landslide".--Pharos 00:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Numbers make little sense without context. What is significant is the LDP made a huge gain and saying it won 296 of 480 seats doesn't make this point. -- Taku 09:30, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with both of you. How about: "Japan general election: Junichiro Koizumi's Liberal Democratic Party wins a landslide 68 percent (296 of 480) victory in the lower house of the Diet of Japan". ? Pedant 02:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Style of entries

I wonder if we might want to encourage a style where the primary, bolded article is generally placed at the start of an entry. I think this approach might make ITN a bit easier to scan at a glance. Here's a comparison of the different approaches:

Of course, this shouldn't be a foolish rule when it could create an awkward wording, but simply a style guidline. What's the general thought on this?--Pharos 23:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty ugly. Its only 4 lines of text - and the most relevant link is bolded, its not hard to miss.--nixie 23:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It would look quite different displayed on the Main Page, as there will almost always be at least one line of text vertically separating the starts of entries, even on large monitors. Cut-and-paste and preview on the Main Page to see what I mean; do you still see the same aesthetic problem? I think it looks more organized without appearing blocklike as it does displayed above. Of course, it is not rare to have double the number of entries up as we have currently.--Pharos 23:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I know what it looks like from messing around with DYK, and I do prefer them to be distributed through the text. Also what would happen in the case of two bolded terms like the current Katrina item?--nixie 23:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it makes sense for DYK to have a more conversational style (I mean it is, "Did you know..."), but with ITN I think it might make sense for a little more regularity. What we have here I think is an extreme iceberg situation. Wikipedia is a 100 story skyscaper full of people, and there's just a handful on the roof running the elevators. Considering the page view statistics, we're surpassing almost every news website, but it's clear only a tiny percentage of readers ever edit at all or understand anything about Wikipedia. When so very many people are coming here to read "headlines", I think ITN should just be as clear and simple at a glance as possible. As for the situation of two bolded items, I would just recommend putting the more important first.--Pharos 00:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm dubious -- wary of the encroaching Powerpontification of written discourse as a general rule, and I'd be particularly ill disposed towards using fragments instead of full grammatical sentences (see Israel, above), but what the heck. Why don't we go live with it for 24 hours, see if our readers respond massively either in favour or against, revert to the old format tomorrow at this time and meet back here for further discussion? –Hajor 00:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

German coalition

Angela Merkel will not lead a "jamaika coalition" (part of that coalition are the "black" party CDU, the green party and the liberal "yellow" party FDP; the article is in the point of the coalitions parts correct). The coalition of CDU and SPD called "great coalition", because CDU/CSU and SPD are the traditionel strongest parties in Germany.

In English, a CDU/SPD coalition as in the 1960s is usually described as a "Grand Coalition". -- Arwel 16:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Who put this in???

The news about some scandal over the Sunday Independent and Liam Lawlor are really not belonging here. We have hurricanes, elections, volcano erruptions, plane crash, etc. and you give 10 sentences for some scandal in a newspaper concerning some politician and a prostitute??? Not logged in and still PMSing User:Renata3 18:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree, and have removed it. This is just an obituary with a minor press scandal.--Pharos 20:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not a minor press scandal. It involves 2 major publications, the Russian police, an international outcry at media standards, and is on the news in Ireland, Britain, the US, and Russia. It is a lot more international than a story about yet another weather problem in the US and yet another goofy appointment by Bush. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Ummm... why isn't on the front page of BBC if it's so important to the British? You're reverting Syrian complicity in the Lebanon assassination for some chatter on whether a British newspaper was sloppy in reporting the circumstances of a death by a Irish politician? I slimmed it down in the previous version, but expanding it into an executive summary is uncalled for. I have reverted its reentry in expanded version. - BanyanTree 20:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I have returned to the prior slimmed down version, which nobody seemed to be particularly incensed about, as a compromise. The two sentence versions are way too wordy. This is a lead-in blurb, not a detailed synopsis. As for the "rv Americocentrism" edit summary, the Syria item was the one removed... - BanyanTree 21:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Firstly I didn't touch any Syrian entry. Secondly, the slimmed down version is amateurishly written in a way that completely misrepresents the story. The issue is not one newspaper, but a number, all practicing appalling standards. It is also an international story because it involves newspapers in two countries and police incompetence in the third. Your "edit" is a worthless version that misses the story completely. The least ITN readers need to get professionally written copy, not sloppy edits.(Sorry if I sound bitchy but the ITN page is frequently an embarrassment. It is sloppily written. Its stories miss the central message time and again. If Wikipedia is going to have a news block it should learn to follow standard journalistic writing style and cover the five key questions:where, what, when, why and how. Your version doesn't say where, misrepresents the what, doesn't cover when, and misses the why and how of the story. But then most things on ITN fails the five questions constantly, which is why the page is so amateurish so often.) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts) This is you not touching any Syria entry. That poor helpful edit caught in the crossfire... I've made three edits on this subject, so will stop, but you appear to suffer from a misapprehension that ITN blurbs are supposed to be short news summaries rather than leads into articles with current information.
The five key questions should be answered through the bolded "hyperlink" in the ITN blurb, not detailed in the blurb itself. You see, by clicking on the attractively bolded words in ITN, the reader can actually find out all about the subject mentioned in the blurb. It allows you to strip a message down to bulleted point and let the reader decide if he or she would like to learn more by clicking on the "hyperlink". FYI - there is actually a Wikinews site to handle the writing of news pieces where I'm sure your journalistic expertise would be appreciated. - BanyanTree 23:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see evidence that this is a "story of an international importance, or at least interest". There are only 76 total news articles on google on "Liam Lawlor" most of which are from news sources originating in Ireland. The BBC website has not run a story and has three total mentions of him dating to the 2002/2001 jailing.--Jiang 04:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Rosa Parks

I removed the listing announcing the death of Rosa Parks because Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page#Criteria for adding entries No 5 states "A death should only be placed on ITN if it meets one of two criteria: (1) the funeral ceremony merits its own article or (2) the death has a major impact on current events. The modification or creation of multiple articles to take into account the ramifications of a death is a sign that it meets Criteria 2."

For item (1), we only give the mention "As of yet, no funeral plans have been announced to the public." in the article. For item (2), there are no multiple articles. The "Death and Funeral", only three sentences long, does not even warrant a section.

Personally, I think this rule is ridiculous. People are going to be interested in the biography when someone dies, even though the death itself is not a major event. But a rule is a rule. --Jiang 04:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you about its being ridiculous, and now is as good a time as any to bring that fact to the community's attention. I propose that we be much more liberal with ITN items in general, including deaths and political scandals, in the interest of keeping the news fresh. — Dan | Talk 04:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
There are plenty of ITN-worthy items every day; it is just not often enough that articles are written on or updated about them. Perhaps we should have a 'requested current event update' section to make this easier. The point is to cover encyclopedic topics that are substantially changed by current events; it is not to post obituaries, like Parks or Lawlor, or political gossip, or sporting events.--Pharos 04:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I really don't see what is wrong with listing obituaries. This allows us to feature a variety of articles, not just articles on storms and elections. Before we implemented the current main page format, we had a line for current events "in the news" and one below it listing "recent deaths". The original proposal for this new main page contained a separate section for deaths, but it was decided that deaths can go under current events. A stub like Detlev Mehlis is a bad representation of wikipedia and should not appear on the main page. --Jiang 05:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

In the News... is not a newspaper, and it shouldn't try to be one. Obituaries don't represent significant encyclopedic changes; they just point to an article about someone's life that, but for perhaps an added line, could have all been written two years ago. Newspapers have 90%+ of their obituaries prewritten for prominent figures like Rosa Parks, but they're only released after death. We already have 'published' accounts of people's lives as encyclopedia articles. For the other matter, I think short articles are just an accurate representation of Wikipedia; as long as there is a reasonable-sized article about a major current world event, there's no reason it shouldn't be posted for the eyes of improving editors. Certainly the Mehlis report on the assassination of Rafik Hariri is a very significant international development (not saying that after a few days it should even necessarily be up now, but this type of item in general is highly appropriate).--Pharos 06:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

"In the news" is not a newspaper, but it is a introduction of articles of current interest. When someone of note dies, they become of current and widespread interest. What is wrong with linking articles of current and widespread interest on the main page? We don't have a requirement that X% of the article must be written within the past X days to be featured here. This unfairly prejudices against dead people, while any insignificant change of event, as long as featured widely in the media, can be listed.

The article we are interested in re:Rafik Hariri is Mehlis Report, not a biography on the individual. The individual is not the media focus. Rafik Hariri is the main subject here. Historically, there has been a "no stub" rule for the main page. I dont know when this rule disappeared off the guidelines. --Jiang 20:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I've readded it. I understand the reluctance to include obituaries for the fear that they will overrun the real news, but the death of a major figure is a major story and we've listed obits here before, like Marlon Brando and Simon Wesenthal. As far as the rule goes, WP:IAR. Gamaliel

Yeah, agree. When famous people die and it's all over the global news, it merits listing here. And when it's a good article, even more so. Many people will want to read and learn more about her today, and we are the one site that really should be giving them that info. And the Main page is the obvious place to have a link to her bio. Though, I do hate the ugly "current" template people put in bios on recently deceased people, but that's a different debate, I guess. Shanes 06:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Then is there agreement to change the guidelines?--Jiang 20:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Recent deaths back in separate section

I think I'm coming around to the idea of bringing 'Recent deaths' back as a separate section. While I think obituaries are a very different creature from real news, I can see the value in highlighting our many fine biography articles when their subjects (perhaps after a long absence) again enter the public consciousness. Hopefully some of the proposals at Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page will open up room for a new little box, where we can have a simple listing of names, rather than ITN-type blurbs.--Pharos 06:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to this proposal and think it's a good idea, but I don't see what is inherently wrong with listing obituaries in ITN. After all, aren't newspapers (and now online news sources) the ONLY places we find obituaries? Obituaries are news. --Jiang 05:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I am in favor of including death notices of prominent people, especially when it is such a good opportunity to show off a good article such as Rosa Parks. Pedant 02:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Iraqi constitution

The Iraqi constitution was actually rejected by a majority in three provinces, though only two had the requisite supermajority to "count". I think the news item should try to avoid suggesting otherwise. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

  • It isn't suggesting otherwise. As you say, the veto only applies when 2/3 of the votes go against it. It would take a whole paragraph to explain it fully; better I think to just link to the article.--Pharos 18:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Someone not knowing the context would probably understand "veto" to mean "rejection by majority". And that "only" sounds unnecessary to me. That more than 95% of voters in a province of a country should reject the proposed constitution of that country is something we should not downplay. I'm not saying this is intentionally POV-y wording and I understand that there are space constraints but I'd prefer something like:
    • "The referendum on the proposed Iraqi constitution passes with 78% approval despite a large number of opposition votes in several provinces."
    • or maybe something like this:
    • "The referendum on the proposed Iraqi constitution passes with 78% approval despite two provinces rejecting it with large majorities."
[edit]

Church child sex scandal

Here's the item:

This is really silly. Maybe there's an upcoming news story, but the whole point of putting something here in "In the News" is so that readers who want more information on the story can click straight through to it. If it isn't a news item yet, then WTF is the point? All the reader is going to get are the articles for:

I'm sure that these are all good articles, but the reader hoping for some breaking scandal is going to be disappointed! --ForestStag 23:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

No. There is a news story carried on the BBC, ITV, Channel4, RTÉ, Sky News, 2 French stations, Vatican Radio and others. It is in the top 3 stories in some, the lead in 2.

It is already covered on the Current events page.

The reason why I could not add in an article is because I was being spammed and it jammed by system and the draft was lost. There is a holding piece in the main article on Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal until the full details are published in detail in the morning newspapers, when a full article on the topic is done. As of this evening it is a massive story, and described as the biggest case in RC church history.

FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

None of the links you provided link to anything to do with the story. I've reviewed Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal and that has some details - why not include a link to that? And while you are at it, perhaps you could do something about that vanity signature of yours? --ForestStag 23:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Archiving this page

Someone removed a large swath of older discussion from this page, apparently without archiving it, so I reverted. I can't seem, though, to find any archives for this page. What's up with this?--Pharos 09:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Try Template talk:In the news/archive. It was removed on 2005 August 7. I wonder why... -- PFHLai 01:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

World Series

Please remove the World Series story. Despite the word "WORLD" - it basically a domestic US sports story, of little international interest, and should be moved to current US sporting events Jooler 06:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I agreed. How about breaking news on the AIDS pandemic and the 2005 Kashmir earthquake? Both entries have been added as candidates. --Vsion 07:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Disagree The World Series is a major sports championship, reported on news sites around the world. Brandon39 08:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
What Brandon said. Gamaliel 08:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I would add that Jooler removed the World Series from Current Events. I restored it. He/she then reverted it back off. I am leaving the matter be, lest I violate the 3R rule, but I would like to seek consensus on this issue. I left a note on Jooler's talk page, but so far, no response. Brandon39 08:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I think it's appropriate to go on Current Events, but it's really not of the international interest to go on ITN, which can only have a couple of items at a time. I say we should have no sporting events until the Olympics, which really is of universal interest. I'm going to replace the blurb with something else.--Pharos 08:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not even a sports fan and I find it hard to believe that the World Series is not of international interest. Baseball is an immensely popular sport around the world, esp. in Latin America and Japan. Certainly this is of more international interest than learning that people in the UK can't smoke in public anymore. In any case, I've dumped the Bernanke item, which was getting stale anyway, and restored the series. Gamaliel 09:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Look, I don't doubt that the World Series is a "major sports championship", but there are much more important things to cover than sporting events, particularly those that are only ever involve two countries. I'm not sure how important the UK somoking ban item is, especially since it won't be implemented for a few years, but I think that anything about fandom (of any kind, really) is by definition basically not of universal interest.--Pharos 09:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Most news outlets and most people would disagree with that assessment. Are there more important things to cover? Certainly, and we're mentioning four of them. Well, three of them since I think the smoking ban is pretty minor news. If there is enough important news today to crowd out the Series, fine, but I don't think we should chuck it out on principle. We're talking maybe three or four things of this type of importance a year. It's a major story regardless of how important we think it may or may not be. Gamaliel 09:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
A sport that takes place in one country is not major news. Yes, some people outside the US are interested, but not a massive amount. The BBC aren't mentioning it aside from a small story on their site. The smoking ban, on the other hand, will encourage more countries to follow suit and effects anyone that visits the country. I won't get into an edit war about either two of these items, though, as it really isn't that important. violet/riga (t) 11:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
The sport may be popular in several countries - so is table tennis. But this is a domestic competition in all but name. Not of International interest. Unlike say the spread of avian flu or the death of 11 people at detention centre at Schiphol airport Jooler 12:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It's reported on the front page of the BBC News website and by Agence France Presse, so I should say it's of international interest. — Dan | Talk 14:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As an American, I'm always glad to see non-US stories in "In the News" because those are the ones I often don't hear about in my local media; I don't see why the rest of the world shouldn't feel the same way about this. Furthermore, just like last year, this year's world series involved a team breaking free of a curse nearly a century old, which adds a "story" and makes the item more than just a box score. Doops | talk 21:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. While this particular news doesnt interest me at all, I think the fact that they have won for the first time since 1917 makes it worthy of mentioning (POV: just like when the @#$% poms won back stole the Ashes) - especially since baseball is followed world wide. However, the fact that the US is perhaps the only English speaking, baseball playing country of notable size would make this more US-centric on the English Main Page. I don't know about Canada, but there is no mention of it on the baseball page. —deanos}{ Ł }{ 01:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
It was NOT reported on the front page of the BBC. There was a small link to the sporting section of the website. It was NOT a top story, unlike here. Jooler 22:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Your second sentence contradicts your first: the link was (and still is) on the front page. In any case, we're splitting hairs. We carry very many stories relevant to only a single nation, e.g. the election of a new Thai prime minister, and there's no harm in having the World Series as well. Please do feel free to propose new items, including ones of interest to your own nation, at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates - it's always nice to rotate the news now and then. — Dan | Talk 22:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Jooler is correct. The item was not reported on the main page (news.bbc.co.uk) but did have a small link on the sport page (news.bbc.co.uk/sport). violet/riga (t) 23:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
IT was not a top story on the main page. On the World Edition (Violet was probably looking at the UK edition) there are 5 words "White Sox take World Series" and a link and that bit of the page is specifically reserved for stories about sport. This is far from it being a featured story as it is here. I already proposed two alternatives. Avian flu and the deaths as Schiphol airport neither of which relate specifically to MY country. You think the election of a head of government is a purely domestic subject? That would lead me to believe that you care little about the world outside of the US. The harm is that having predominantly stories about domestic US issues presents this encyclopaedia as skewed to an American point of view about what is and isn't important. The World Series is a domestic competition and is not widely viewed outside of the United States, however much they play the sport in Cuba or Japan. Since I wrote that we now have more news. I note we have nothing about the airstrike on the [Gaza Strip]]. Is the World Series (such a misnomer) more important? Jooler 23:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I think INT does a good job of not being US dominated, and in fact I think this is an example of us skewing it too far in the other direction and trying to remove a perfectly suitable story for fear of "too much America". Sure, the WS isn't the World Cup, but people in other countries do care. (Cuba and Japan and Canada aren't important enough?) I really doubt that people in Cuba would care more about the UK's smoking ban than the WS. Gamaliel 23:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Cuba and Japan and Canada would be important enough - if the story was in any way related to those countries, but we are talking about a domestic competition in the US. If we had a story about someone winning the national Chinese Table Tennis competition, would be put that on ITN just because people in the USA also play the game? Jooler 02:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Leave it that way. The World Series are an important sporting event in Latin America too, and also the Caribbean. With Ozzy Guillen being the manager of the Chicago White Sox, Venezuela is also interested. Titoxd(?!?) 03:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I think ITN is being US dominated. Please help to counter systemic bias. Election of a country's head of government capture more global interest than the "World" series, or the withdrawal of a nomination to be an associate justice of a country's supreme court. It's not like Liverpool F.C. winning the Champions League. Even in the US, the World Series is less popular than the Superbowl. People are not as crazy about it than say football (soccer) in Europe, or cricket in South Asian, which are like religions in these countries. Frankly, the wide US media coverage of the world series is partly due to the immense commercialization of the game, and the conglomeration of the entertainment, sports and news reporting industries in the US. --Vsion 00:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Let me just point out here, conversely, that the vast majority of Americans would have no idea what it meant if they heard about "Liverpool F.C. winning the Champions League". Why should we have any sporting events besides the Olympics at all, when they are all culturally limited and only of concern to fans anyway? There is such a thing as real news.--Pharos 00:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
"The vast majority of Americans would have no idea what it meant if they heard about "Liverpool F.C. winning the Champions League" That perfectly displays the inherent bias - yes you are right Americans, unlike 95% of the rest of the world would have no idea. Conversely 95% of the world would have no idea who the White Sox are. The World Cup is more popular than the Olympics - FACT. So if you wanted to limit sport to one sport then that sport would be football (soccer to you). Jooler 01:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that ITN should be more International and there should not be more than one story about a particular country except for exceptional circumstances like an earthquake of terrorist act etc. Currently there are US stories that are both about domestic issues. Jooler 01:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
BTW, in case you didn't notice, Jooler, I was agreeing with you :) I do, think, though, that the Olympics, whatever the television ratings may be, is more important as an international event; it's not just that many countries are participating, it's practically organized like an auxiliary meeting of the United Nations, if you know what I mean.--Pharos 01:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Forget TV ratings. Teams from 207 national football associations took part in the competition for the 2006 World Cup, compared to 202 countries for the 2004 Olympic Games. Jooler 02:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC) - correction I read 207 from the Football World Cup page, but that contradicts the Football World Cup 2006, the later is correct and I've corrected the former, so my point is in error. Jooler 02:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Just wanna say that the sports enthusiasts in Wikipedia have done a good job on those sports pages. Let's feature them on the MainPage when there are related major stories in the news. At least for diversity's sake. Politics just bore the heck out of me. Big news items in sports or in science are fine candidates for ITN. Please don't take them out. Just my cents ... -- PFHLai 02:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You're certainly right about the general high quality of sports articles. I also agree that ITN focuses too much on politics; some more science items, for example, I think would be a Good Thing. If people really like sports on ITN, as they seem to, then I suppose that's alright, but just let's never overdo it. I guess it would bother me less if the space was a bit bigger.--Pharos 02:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I also think listing a reasonably major sporting event now and then is fine. Wikipedia isn't the primary news source for anybody anyway, so being very concerned about what people see, or should see, as the 4 most important news events at any time is, I think, being too serious about the news reporting aspect of ITN. I believe we should focus on being an encyclopedia also in the ITN-section and use it to give news background and information by showcasing good wikipedia-articles where the subject is In The News, but also use it to show readers the great diversity of articles and topics we have. A bit like todays FA. I wouldn't mind having other less serious events in there either from time to time. Movies, games, music, etc if it's a reasonably major news-happening, we haven't had anything on the broader topic for a while, and we have a good article on it. Variation will increase the likelyhood that a casual reader finds something to his interest there, clicks the link, and gets hooked. But variation should of course be made with caution and good judgment and taste. And exercising that here, with 500 people allowed to edit, is probably the biggest problem. Raul has it easier with his FA. It's only him. And, besides, he does have good taste ;-). Shanes 02:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

If interested, please take a look at List of most watched sporting events in 2004 for a (not perfect, but) objective measure of which sports events are considered as significant. You may be surprised by some of the listed events ...  :-) --Vsion 04:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Baseball doesn't even get a mention. The FA Cup figure doesn't seem right though. I would expect a figure of around 9 odd Million for the UK alone. The 2005 final was watch by 13.7 million in Britain, but then it was Arsenal vs Man U[1], but the game is also shown live across the world (or at least it used to be) Perhaps Sky TC and Eurosport have the rights sewn up. Jooler 06:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
That list is bollocks - see my post on its talk page. sjorford #£@%&$?! 08:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Call for the Destruction of Israel

There is a mistake in the link Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Call for the Destruction of Israel. The "D" in "Destruction" should be lowercase. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 22:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Hurricane Beta

Hurricane Beta is not the first, but the second hurricane named after a letter of the Greek alphabet. Hurricane Alpha is the first. Aecis 20:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Alpha never became a hurricane; it was only a tropical storm.--Pharos 20:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Entries here on ITN

After User:Silsor removed the entry on ITN about "President George W. Bush nominates Samuel A. Alito, Jr to the United States Supreme Court".[2], we both got into a discussion about the quote on Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page that says "It should be a story of an international importance, or at least interest."

My question: is there any sort of good way one can determine if a news story qualifies for that criteria so one can add it to ITN, or remove an entry if it does not fit? Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I don't edit this template much, but it seems everytime I do, there's an argument here... Anyway, my rationale is I'm just following precident. Bush's recent nominations of Myers and Bernacke (sp?) were on ITN, so no reason this shouldn't be as well. Gamaliel 19:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Those nominations shouldn't have been on ITN either. silsor 19:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Geesh, I didn't realize that countering the tendency to be US-centric meant no US news can go on the template. I'm not German, but I would never dream of saying that the story currently listed about the Dresden church was "Not interesting to non-Germans; nil importance to non-Germans." Gamaliel 19:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Good, because that wouldn't be true. The firebombing of Dresden is a point of international interest and the rebuilding of the church is an important symbol related to that. On the other hand, U.S. President George Bush nominated Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the United States Supreme Court. Let me say that again, just so we're on the same page. U.S. President George Bush nominated Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the United States Supreme Court. The issue isn't that news happening in the US is going in the template, it's that the news has no relevance outside the US. silsor 19:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The story is being covered internationally. (It was number 3 in the running order of RTÉ News these evening.) Of course it belongs on ITN. Most US stories don't but this one clearly does. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should include all internationally featured stories on ITN. After all, bandwidth is cheap. What's the real reason? silsor 19:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The Dresden story received no coverage in most news bulletins I saw today from and European, British or Irish channels. Those that did carry it carried it mid-way through the running order. The nomination was on all, up near the top. It would be patently absurd not to cover the nomination. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

So far nobody has said why the nomination story affects people outside of the U.S. Since we have guidelines that those news bulletins don't necessarily share, can you tell me why we should run the story on our front page? silsor 20:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

If it is good enough for the BBC, ITN (the real ITN, not this page which in using some broadcaster's registered acronym has seriously pissed off some people in the real ITN), French television, German television, Euro News, RTÉ, and a host of other media organisations then it is good enough for here. In any case legal challenges on abortion, gay rights, even the dubious election of Dubya, regularly get international media coverage. Knowing that a new person has been appointed to the entity making these rulings is patiently obviously newsworthy. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia isn't a new outlet, it's an encyclopedia, which is why the Dresden Frauenkirche is such a fine item. I think we should be comparing ourselves more to Britannica than the BBC. Not that Alito isn't himself of some encyclopedic importance, but I can certainly understand people tiring of all these breathless updates on the appointing of members to one country's court.--Pharos 21:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


D'oh! This page is In The News not In The Encyclopædia. This is a news feature so of course on this page we have to be more BBC than Brittanica. The rest of Wikipedia can and should aim to be Brittanica. But this page covers news stories. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the Alito nomination to ITN, and I'm Australian. Cultural bias is one thing, but the conduct of the US Supreme Court has many international ramifications, and was prominently shown on the news here as well as in many countries. I understand that it may not be of interest to you, Silsor, but please do not speak for the rest of the civilised world. It's certainly of more interest here than the Dresden Frauenkirche, but I'm not arguing for that to be removed from here. Ambi 00:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
That brings up a point I wanted to make. Rdsmith4 said earlier on the IRC channel that "a SCOTUS nomination is of international interest in that the actions of the SCOTUS can have a great effect on world politics", which seems to be your position. My response is that "world politics" is In-The-News-worthy, "effect on world politics" is borderline, "actions of the SCOTUS" is generally below our radar, and "SCOTUS nomination" is right out. silsor 04:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree it should be removed, because the nomination event per se does not have "great effect on world politics", but more of a media hype. The Harriet Miers case already showed this. Her nomination was in ITN, then her withdrawal was in ITN (in fact, for several days), now the whole world have to forget about her, what's the point for all the attention? Most people in the US don't know who is Alito before his nomination. If the nomination is confirmed, then it is more worthy of ITN. What is encycleopedic is the polarization of American politics today, but the Samuel Alito article does not provide a backgrounder on the politics. If the democrats go filibuster on this nomination, then the filibuster event is ITN-worthy because it will be remembered for a long time, but right now it is too early. It's more for Jay Leno, political-talk show kind of news. --Vsion 05:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
You're making value judgements. Whether it is or not media hype is not our problem. It is a major issue in the United States, and an important issue around the world; it's received quite a lot of attention here; why else would an Australian be checking Google News every few hours to see if there'd been any announcement? The polarisation of politics is a good topic for an article, but remember that this is a page about the news. Alito is the one in the news at this very moment, and this is why he belongs here. Ambi 05:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
You may be right; I think the media (or politicians) pay too much attention to the Abortion rights debate and neglected other issues related to Teenage pregnancy, AIDS pandemic and the drug abuse problem, domestic or global. As a non-profit site, I hope wikipedia can do better and has a "higher" standard. --Vsion 07:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm suprised at the comment by jtdirl "The Dresden story received no coverage in most news bulletins I saw today" - it was the TOP story on the BBC ten o'clock news (on Sunday - the day it happened!) Jooler 07:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Closed U.S. Senate session

OK, there's no article, and there can't be any article- because it's secret. This can't be encyclopedic if we can't put anything more on it than what's in the blurb.--Pharos 21:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's link it to the Wikinews article instead. That's far more timely than something that was discovered in May. Karmafist 22:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a news site. If there is nothing encyclopaedic about the new development, then it doesn't belong on ITN. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. --Golbez 22:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed - ITN is for articles that have recently been updated as the result of a current event. violet/riga (t) 22:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Very well, then. I'll link it to this, and modify the entry accordingly to include Reid. Karmafist 23:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually there's an article now about Closed Sessions of the United States Senate in general -- a list, anyway, of the 54 times (counting this one) that it has been done. I was interested, I found it, now there's a page. So you can link to that. Oh, an alias for it is Closed Senate Session List Readparse 23:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

2005 Paris riots

Is 6 consecutive days of immense rioting in Paris, France, not worth mention on the main page? Too controversial? Shall we remain occupied with the newly found lumps of rock orbitting the "planet" Pluto? -- Zeno of Elea 05:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Not an international event. Wow, some kids torched some cars in Paris. If people are going to bitch about the US Supreme Court being on there, why should a little riot in Europe be? --Golbez 07:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
You reckon if there were 6 days of rioting in LA it wouldn't be on the front page!?!? Jooler 23:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
It might, and then Euros would be complaining about a US bias. I'm just trying to supply some equal time. --Golbez 04:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
"It might" my arse. Of course it would - no question and quite rightly as it would be an event worthy of being there. You're trying to have a go back at us for complaining of Americo-centrism and flagrantly displaying your contempt by claiming that news from Europe ("some kids ... a little riot in Europe" [which has continued for a 7th 8th 9th10th night BTW]) isn't as important. The arrogance is distateful. Jooler 07:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Golbez's comments are bizarre. Maybe Americans regard riots as normal for cities but the rest of the world doesn't. 10 days of rioting in a European capital is a massive story. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, if euros can complain about pro-US bias, I figured I'd throw it right back. Call it devil's advocate - I'm just annoyed at the hand wringing about US bias here. --Golbez 19:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

But there is a pro-US bias! What the heck is a story about the US Senate doing on ITN? It received zilch coverage in news bulletin internationally and no-one outside the US (and many in the US) cares about the Congress having closed sessions. The Paris story is a lead story internationally. Sky News International has just led with it on its 8pm bulletin. It was in the top 3 stories on the BBC. It was lead on RAI. I understand it features on South African TV right now. There is an unambiguous US bias in stories on this page. On the 26th of October, for example, 4 out of 5 stories were either American or stories of big interests to America: a hurricane touching Mexico and Florida (to which the rest of the world went yawn, who cares?), a plebiscite run in American-occupied Iraq (If it was France-occupied Iraq, Saudi-occupied Iraq, Italy-occupied Iraq, would the war and its results have been so important on WP?), the appointment of the head of the American Federal Reserve (who cares outside the beltway?) and the death of Rosa Parks. Of those, Rosa's death and the Iraq vote got international coverage. The Fed story got slight coverage in the business sections, while the hurricane story was a non-story for the rest of the planet. Yet according to WP of the five biggest stories on the planet, four were big for Americans. That is all too typical of ITN, where Africa is rarely covered, European stories like the riots get attacked, Asia doesn't seem to exist much in ITN's consciousness, but big stories of interest in the US are the ones deemed to be worthy of ITN coverage. The attitude seems to be one of "if it isn't of interest to Americans it doesn't belong on ITN". Or, as people who put up non-US stories are invariably told: it doesn't feature on CBS/NBC/ABC so obviously it isn't an international story! And you wonder why non-Americans get so annoyed!!! FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Crown copyright

Should I link to Crown copyright under that picture of Mr. Blunkett? --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 15:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought about that, but I'd be very surprised if the terms say "...and you must link to a Wikipedia article giving the meaning of Crown Copyright...", and it'd be nice if the copyright notice was as unobtrusive as possible. I wonder if we should, however, be acknowledging the Home Office as the source? -Splashtalk 15:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
That might be a good idea, if that's what needs to be done. Being a Yank, I myself don't know much about copyright in the UK. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 15:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
The "Crown Copyright" notice is obstrusive and improper. Other copyright thumbnails on the front page (news events etc) are not given the same treatment. Put a notice in the image itself, if its that important --this lookes more like unnecessary 'royal treatment.' -St|eve 02:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I suggested that on Talk:Main Page, since the picture already has the relevant tag. Whoever it was thought that this was insufficient. IANAL, and to err is safe. -Splashtalk 02:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Talk:MP wasnt the right place - this is. It has never been policy to include such tags in an ITN thumb. Why now? -St|eve 02:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, for goodness sake. Remove it if you like. Leave the royal bashing and policy thrashing alone. -Splashtalk 02:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, for goodness sake. Ive asked someone to restore my ops so I can do just that. ') -St|eve 03:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, for goodness sake. I thought you had +sysop back while the arbcom untangled themselves. I'm sorry. -Splashtalk 03:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Em Steve, it has nothing to do with the royals. Crown copyright is simply state copyright. In many monarchies the word crown is used where republics would use state. I thought do that crown copyright images weren't normally used on ITN because we are meant to formally acknowledge the copyright status and this problem arises. So we not have any other image of him that isn't cc? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

That might have been a pun on words by SV. 'Royal treatment' can simply mean 'extra attention'. --64.229.220.87 07:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I can't find one, no. I personally thought that the image page was enough, but at Talk:Main Page#David Blunkett photo someone was sounding quite sure otherwise. I have no objection whatever to it being removed, so long as we are sure that doens't violate the requirements of Crown Copyright. (Which would supersede any internal wikipedia policy if they make this kind of demand.) -Splashtalk 03:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Image use policy: 9. Don't put photo credits in articles or on the images themselves; put them on the description page. So the copyright probably shouldn't be shown on the main page.--nixie 03:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's better to move it to the ALT. --64.229.220.87 07:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

German grand coalition

The relevant article hasn't been updated, so why is this item in the news? It seems like I'm always coming across these bolded 'in the news' articles which have little or no mention of the topic. How about people update the article first, and THEN suggest it / add it to the news? --Brendanfox 06:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's bold Edmund Stoiber and Franz Müntefering instead. These pages are updated. --64.229.220.87 07:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Paris riots pic

I think the Paris riots picture is pretty lousy, but I've added {{HistoricPhotoRationale}} to it. We might think about removing it, or finding a free version provided by a french Wikipedian. (I protected it, too.)-Splashtalk 17:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

What's going on? It is a copyvio, it isn't a copyvio, someone removes, the same person replaces it... -Splashtalk 17:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

(And can we get rid of the stuff below here, it's very confusing.)

You didn't put the notice on the picture so we were committing a serious copyright violation. It had to be taken off until the copyright status was established, and the relevant notice in situ.

I did put the notice on the picture, check the history. Rama reverted it. -Splashtalk 17:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You protected his reversion, meaning that it was protected with a no copyright status tag (literally) stuck on it. I hadn't been able to get into the edit history of it at the time. WP was in one of its periodic slow phases. I gave up trying after 6 minutes of 'opening'. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I too got caught in the wikislow, and had no means of realising from the protection screen that it had been reverted. -Splashtalk 18:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Re the 'stuff' below. The answer is 'no'. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Then can we move it to the top of the page, so that the '+' button works? -Splashtalk 18:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

We have a policy against putting fair use images on the main page, even if we use them on some articles.--Pharos 18:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Mar del Plata Summit of the Americas

This article needs a lot of work within less than a day. Bush is arriving in Argentina late tonight, and the protests are going to get pretty ugly. This topic will be a top headline for the next few days, though this article is a sub as of now. 172 | Talk 00:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The Summit of the Americas now should be placed in the current events template. It is the top story, e.g., on Reuters as of the time of this post. [3] 172 | Talk 19:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Update please

Why is Congresses' close session still on there? Really, we should have the tornado , parlimentary elections, Paris suburb riots, Gene Robinson and maybe something else. Thanks. Falphin 18:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE PLACE COMMENTS ON THE CONTENTS OF THIS PAGE ABOVE THIS NOTICE AND LEAVE THE REQUEST TO MOVE AT THE BOTTOM

[edit]

Request for move

The reason is simple. Wikipedians uses the acronym ITN to discuss this page. That is actually the registered acronym of a real news agency Independent Television News. The page already uses acronyms like ABC, BBC, RTÉ, CBS etc for news sources. A friend of mine who works in the real ITN has already had someone complain about an erronious "ITN" story that showed up in a google search that actually was from our ITN not the real one. (The search had found somewhere on Wikipedia where people were rowing about whether "ITN" was accurate or too Americocentric.

A more serious problem could arise at any time if we get something seriously wrong and a google search links people to the acronym ITN meaning us, not the real ITN. To avoid any problems that might arise (and as they have a legal right to use ITN) we need to use a name that cannot cause confusion with a real news agency.

I raised this issue on the Wikilist and while there was no consensus on what to rename the page to, there was a consensus that it would be best to change to a new page to stop people using ITN for our page on Wikipedia.

The name proposed, "Around the world" isn't set in stone. It was just a name that I thought of when requesting the move. But it is important to get rid of the initials ITN from our pages, so that when they do appear it is clear that they mean only one thing, Independent Television News. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 04:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose
    • The name "In the news" has nothing more in common with "Independent Television News" than its initials. "ITN" is never used on anything but talk pages, and outside groups should have no say over our internal discussions- this side of the page is no different here than an internet forum.
      • Wrong. It is used by Wikipedians in all fora they communicate through, from the Wikipedia lists to talk pages, messages, emails, websites that discuss Wikipedia and a host of other locations and crops up on pages taken from us under our licence [4] [5] [6][7][8] In the event of a legal case we would not have a leg to stand on. ITN is a registered name of a worldwide news supplier. We use the acronym to refer to news stories and discuss what is on ITN meaning our ITN but which can be misunderstood if stumbled across by others, especially when the same page uses valid acronyms for other news agencies alongside our improper usage of some other agency's registered name which we wrongly use as our own. Furthermore, ITN has a reputation of being ruthless in initiating court cases. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 16:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If someone googles random forum pages for an initialism, they shouldn't be surprised at the ambiguity of TLAs if they don't read in context. What if someone here in future complains that "ATW" has lost artistic relevance, is a disservice to Wales or was once innovative but is now outmoded.--Pharos 12:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

      • None of the "ATW"s you cite have anything to do with news. The same clearly cannot be said with ITN. Proteus (Talk) 12:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • For starters, I'm not convinced that a little bit of whining from a couple of guys at ITN warrants changing the page name. However, if we do change it, it would be nice if the new name had some remote resemblance to news. "Around the world" could refer to just about anything from featured articles to the systemic bias WikiProject. Ambi 13:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The name is simply a rough suggestion. It is simply a reminder that the last thing we need to do is quite innocently piss off a major news organisation, one we may need in the future to work with, simply because we were foolish to continue to allow the use of a name that when acronymised produces the name of a very large rival organisation. If we make a major error that gets attention and we discuss it by using the acronym we could find outselves in serious legal water because we would be discussing an error using what legally is some other major news organisation's name, so implying to people who weren't au fait with our template name that it was their error. ITN are famed in the industry for legal cases. They once closed down a magazine in a case. It would be unthinkable for us to refer to this page as the BBC, or NBC. (Every US Wikipedian would be on like a shot to warn us not to be so stupid if we tried to call this page CBS) It should be equally unthinkable to use ITN. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 16:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Though Around The World is also a Daft Punk song, which would be cool. More seriously, I'm not sure that I would characterize ITN as a "rival organisation". There are no hits for "ITN Wikipedia" that appear in Google news for the simple reason that we are not a news organization, do not intend to be a news organization, and would deny being a news organization if anyone asked. Again, see Wikinews. And if we move the page then we have to worry about Air Transport World, which has a news office, suing us for causing confusion with their ATW acronym. Let's not make work for ourselves. - BanyanTree 17:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose strongly. Template:News would be nice, but the header should certainly remain "in the news". — Dan | Talk 18:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support move per JTD's arguments, but would prefer {{News}} & "Front-page news" (or other similar) over "Around the world". –Hajor 14:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - no need. violet/riga (t) 19:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments


PLEASE PLACE COMMENTS ON THE CONTENTS OF THIS PAGE ABOVE THIS REQUEST TO MOVE.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:In_the_news"
Personal tools